A new argument against God? - Think Atheist2015-03-03T21:00:55Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/a-new-argument-against-god?feed=yes&xn_auth=noMakes sense to me.tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-21:1982180:Comment:13548052013-07-21T00:05:54.782Zarchaeopteryxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/u_2gskiyna07rt3
<p>Makes sense to me.</p>
<p>Makes sense to me.</p> These are persuasive reminder…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-20:1982180:Comment:13546922013-07-20T07:35:45.767ZTom Sarbeckhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>These are persuasive reminders that xianity requires people to be uneducated or gullible. Thanx.</p>
<p></p>
<p>These are persuasive reminders that xianity requires people to be uneducated or gullible. Thanx.</p>
<p></p> Good summary.tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-20:1982180:Comment:13544402013-07-20T05:56:09.374ZStutzhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Stutz
<p>Good summary.</p>
<p>Good summary.</p> "There is a god, and he is a…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-20:1982180:Comment:13542892013-07-20T05:45:51.210ZStutzhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Stutz
<blockquote><p><span>"There is a god, and he is a jerk" is not an atheist stance.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a valid and important point to make, and one that we don't articulate often enough. However, the understanding is that, when talking about what a jerk god is, we are showing that the God portrayed in the bible is self-contradictory. So it is an atheist argument in a roundabout way, since it indirectly undermines common Christian beliefs. I think that by not finishing this line…</p>
<blockquote><p><span>"There is a god, and he is a jerk" is not an atheist stance.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a valid and important point to make, and one that we don't articulate often enough. However, the understanding is that, when talking about what a jerk god is, we are showing that the God portrayed in the bible is self-contradictory. So it is an atheist argument in a roundabout way, since it indirectly undermines common Christian beliefs. I think that by not finishing this line of thinking and saying that it's simply more likely that God is make-believe, that we leave ourselves open to charges of being "just mad at God".</p> *moot
Luckily for us, if they…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-20:1982180:Comment:13542842013-07-20T05:35:58.970ZStutzhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Stutz
<p>*moot</p>
<p>Luckily for us, if they go in that direction we can discuss how he apparently sends most souls to eternal torment in hell for minor offences. Given that situation, I suspect most of those souls would prefer nonexistence.</p>
<p>*moot</p>
<p>Luckily for us, if they go in that direction we can discuss how he apparently sends most souls to eternal torment in hell for minor offences. Given that situation, I suspect most of those souls would prefer nonexistence.</p> The government could insist t…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-20:1982180:Comment:13542792013-07-20T05:15:09.160ZStutzhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Stutz
<blockquote><p><span>The government could insist that we all take drugs to make us more mellow...</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course that doesn't amount to freedom. That's a straw man. Valium does not change our nature, it chemically alters our behavior. I'm not talking about forcibly altering humans as we are currently constructed, so to speak; I'm talking about God, <em>in the first place</em>, having created us slightly differently, such that our nature itself were more mellow. You're…</p>
<blockquote><p><span>The government could insist that we all take drugs to make us more mellow...</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course that doesn't amount to freedom. That's a straw man. Valium does not change our nature, it chemically alters our behavior. I'm not talking about forcibly altering humans as we are currently constructed, so to speak; I'm talking about God, <em>in the first place</em>, having created us slightly differently, such that our nature itself were more mellow. You're assuming that we have a nature independent of, and not created by, God, that he would have to violate in order to make us more mellow. I'm saying that human nature itself is created by God, according to theistic principles.</p>
<blockquote><p><span>We choose to live near volcanoes...</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Communities grew up in the path of natural disasters in ignorance of the dangers. Nobody in Pompeii was a volcanologist. Besides, this does not challenge my suggestion that God, in his omnipotence, could have created an earth without natural disasters in the first place.</p>
<blockquote><p><span><span>...we give [children] freedom because they have to experience choices and results, cause and effect in order to learn and grow.</span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span><span>and</span></span></p>
<blockquote><p><span>A final exam in physics can cause stress and suffering, but also causes groups to form to study together, and individuals to study and strive for understanding. A professor who gives a final exam is fully responsible for the entire situation, and chooses to do so anyways because it will lead to the most growth.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>A professor is <strong>not</strong> responsible for the <strong>entire</strong> situation in same way that an omnipotent being is. Again, you're not dealing with the full ramifications of omnipotence. A professor has no control over the fact that humans learn best through difficult study; he did not create humanity! Given that limitation, the professor chooses the best option for the circumstances. God has no limitations. God<strong> creates the circumstances</strong>. God, if he exists, apparently created a world such that suffering is necessary—in some, but certainly not all, circumstances—for growth. Given the definition of <em>omnipotent</em>, I assert that he could have created it such that no suffering were necessary. To claim otherwise is essentially to claim that God can be constrained by a natural law (i.e., that growth is not possible sans suffering, or to paraphrase you, that children <em>have to</em> experience cause and effect—note my emphasis on "have to") that he must operate under. To hammer it home one more time: an omnipotent being would be constrained by no laws or circumstances, since he creates them himself.</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span>The death of a friend is sad, and yet often brings people together to renew friendships, or to focus on things in life that are more important.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Would you give up this reinforcement of a life lesson to have your friend back? I think any moral person would.</p> And the obvious rebuttal to t…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-20:1982180:Comment:13543882013-07-20T04:34:24.516ZStutzhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Stutz
<p>And the obvious rebuttal to that line of thought is that god is omniscient. He clearly knew Eve's choice before she made it.</p>
<p><font size="2">Furthermore, he created the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and created Adam and Eve as innocent beings ignorant of the consequences of disobedience. Morally, they were equivalent to children. So not only did he essentially sentence children to the death penalty, he sentenced all their </font>descendants for the rest of time to the same…</p>
<p>And the obvious rebuttal to that line of thought is that god is omniscient. He clearly knew Eve's choice before she made it.</p>
<p><font size="2">Furthermore, he created the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and created Adam and Eve as innocent beings ignorant of the consequences of disobedience. Morally, they were equivalent to children. So not only did he essentially sentence children to the death penalty, he sentenced all their </font>descendants for the rest of time to the same punishment.<font size="2"> </font></p> Here are some other questions…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-19:1982180:Comment:13543402013-07-19T21:10:00.227ZWesleyhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/WesSherman
<p>Here are some other questions along these lines... If God is all-knowing and all-powerful then why..</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. If fundamentalist Christians are the only ones to go to heaven, why did he KNOWINGLY create so many beings that were doomed to hell-fire?</p>
<p>2.If God is more loving, more compassionate, more forgiving than any human being then why did he create a universe with a built-in demand for blood sacrifice? Why did he create a universe that was punitive only.. instead of…</p>
<p>Here are some other questions along these lines... If God is all-knowing and all-powerful then why..</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. If fundamentalist Christians are the only ones to go to heaven, why did he KNOWINGLY create so many beings that were doomed to hell-fire?</p>
<p>2.If God is more loving, more compassionate, more forgiving than any human being then why did he create a universe with a built-in demand for blood sacrifice? Why did he create a universe that was punitive only.. instead of rehabilitative? Why is it One and done for all eternity? Seems like the Hindu version of god is much more fair and compassionate in this respect.</p>
<p>3. If Adam and Eve were truly innocent then why judge them so harshly? especially if he already knew what they were going to do?</p>
<p>4. If a perfect God makes imperfect beings.. doesn't that imply an imperfection in Him? I mean if before anything else existed ... HE WAS... Then where does imperfection come from?</p>
<p>There are just tons and tons of questions that nobody really has a decent answer.</p> I see -- thanks for pointing…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-22:1982180:Comment:13339022013-06-22T22:34:41.568ZSandBeachhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SandAmes
<p>I see -- thanks for pointing that out. Point taken.</p>
<p>I see -- thanks for pointing that out. Point taken.</p> About the Giant? Probably ver…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-22:1982180:Comment:13341002013-06-22T20:41:34.428ZDave Ghttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DaveG
<p>About the Giant? Probably very few people. But if there were a billion people who not only believed that the Giant was real, but also believed that they were supposed to emulate the Giant and act as he does, then it becomes important to point out that the Giant is bad and moreover, does not actually exist.</p>
<p>About the Giant? Probably very few people. But if there were a billion people who not only believed that the Giant was real, but also believed that they were supposed to emulate the Giant and act as he does, then it becomes important to point out that the Giant is bad and moreover, does not actually exist.</p>